Well, that seems to be the way that Google works. I guess if Eric Schmidt gets chosen, that will be his first move: Declare all Commerce to be Beta. So if there are any problems with the US Commerce, he can just say, "Hey, this is all still Beta . . . problems are to be expected."

There sure has been a lot of revolving door action in this administration, for a President who vowed there would be none. It's business as usual, as conflicts of interest abound with the appointment of big private industry leaders to significant posts and the vacating of significant posts leads to those persons capitalizing on their position (and, often, the actions they took while holding that position which just so happen to be in the same field of interest as the company's they're now leaving for) to pri

Oh, if only that were true. Unfortunately, we have people like Vivek Kundra and his whole wealth of "experience" and "knowledge" that undermines that whole idea. I think everyone recognizes titles as the rewards they are and the whole "okay, I did your bidding, now employ me" model.

ok, I had to double-check this:blithe/blTH/Adjective
1. Showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.
2. Happy or joyous.

But when Eric Schmidt reminded everyone that he is bound by law to hand over your search history and that googling "how to murder my wife" was a really stupid thing to do before you go and murder your wife, I'd hardly consider his comments to be joyous or cheerfully indifferent.

I know that there is an unreasonable hatred of Google around here, but seriously, stop trying to spin this quote into some sort of distopian doomsaying.

And while I'm at it, I'm going to pre-emptivly rant about how it's not "Do no evil", it's "don't be evil". Just wait, someone will drag that minor grammar mistake out. Well you sir can consider yourself ranted against.

itwbennett/soulskill/Chris Nerney are criticizing the choice of Eric Schmidt without proposing an alternative. I'm inclined to think that a pharmaceutical industry bigwig from Pfizer is chosen instead, he probably will not in any way improve life for US citizens. What's the big deal about Schmidt? Do you think, as Commerce Secretary, that he will somehow water down privacy legislation to help Google?

Look at the last 4 story posts by soulskill. Looks like the cover of a gossip magazine. Here I am being ironic pointing this out. Guess I need to be angry at myself first, then. I'm just getting older and cranky. I think a lot of us are around here. I stopped putting energy into this system. I'm sorry everyone. I bring this place down too.

I'd like to discuss the idea that you mentioned, including the quotation. I don't really care who said it, or under what circumstances she said it. But the idea itself certainly has merit. I wonder if there's a way we could prove or disprove it.

A person would be awful boring if they only discussed ideas. What if all their ideas are crap? Are they then a great mind? Just asking...

1. "Great minds discuss ideas" does not mean "all people who discuss ideas have great minds."2. Many people find discussion of ideas boring.3. The fact that most "great minds" do not have television shows where people can watch them discuss ideas is probably related to 2.4. The proliferation of television shows where crap ideas are discussed highlights the truth of 1.

I used the quote, and refused to talk about the people or event, but only wanted to discuss the idea - to show I have a great mind.But it apparently went over everyone's head. I guess my mind is either too great, or just not very funny.

Wow...so we've got three choices: a guy who openly declares his current employer to be an advertising company masquerading as a benevolent information broker; a former boss of the most corrupt, cynical corporation in an industry that's famous all around for bribes, price fixing, and bad science for profit; and a bureaucrat.Is this Russian roulette or what?

With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.

Yet another fucking idiot using this misquote to manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what was actually said.

What Schmidt actually said was (paraphrased): "If you do stupid shit you don't want people to know about, don't post it on the internet. Google can't save your ass, neither technically (there are other search engines) nor legally (Google is not immune to legal subpoena)."

Instead of recognizing Schmidt for being one of the few (influential) people out there who actually recognize an

Well, sorry, but I am tired of people calling people assholes and fucking idiots because they disagree with the idea or sentiment being proposed. Grow up.

I did not misquote the man, I put his words down verbatim and took the trouble to find the video so that people could judge the content for themselves.

The whole point of the debate is, what if you are not doing stupid shit? What if you are doing research on terrorists because you want to know what makes them tick? What if you looking up something that is n

Ok, since you bother to reply I'll take back calling you names, and apologize for that.

However, while your quote is not falsified by changing the words, I still see it as voluntarily misleading by only quoting the first part, which is really only hedging for what he actually has to say, which is: "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United St